The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, October 16, 1946. A QUESTION OF COMPETITION.

Grey River Argus, 16 October 1946, Page 4

The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, October 16, 1946. A QUESTION OF COMPETITION.

There may be no mystery about anti-Labour press, propaganda against our Government joining Britain’s Government in an oil enterprise. It is doubtless the same in origin as ■ that offered every other form of public enterprise by the same press. It is only when private enterprise is in peace time in need of finance to keep solvent, or as in war time in need of military defence, that a call issues from that quarter for Government initiative. Nationalisation is a policy then sanctioned very readily, especially as regards manpower. There is some real mystery, however, about the inspiration of the Associated Chambers of Commerce when they say they, would welcome the new oil enterprise in the Dominion, even as a British Government enterprise, provided that the New Zealand Government had not taken any financial interest in the project. The Chambers actually must have a brief for the oil concerns already monopolising our market. These ,it turns out, own all of the installations through which their oil is sold, including the bulk installa tions, the tank-tvagons, the pumps and even the rail tank-wagons, built for them by the Government. The. companies even have their own-tankers to bring supplies from overseas, and use some chartered ships, while at the garages pumps are theirs, and are only on loan. The mere entry of another supplier is by the anti-Labour press alleged,; only to herald “destruction of private enterprise,” with no hint that actually it' is merely competition with what appears one of the monopolies we have in the country. The spokesmen for it declare that the Government company will not be

able to sell its petrol from the existing pumps at the garages unless one of the present distributors allows it to be done! So this is the wonderful private enterprise after all. The new concern may be British, but the question is what may be the background of the other concerns which hold this monopoly, The antiLabour press does not even hazard a guess. The only defence of such private enterprise seems simply to be that it may stand is a wall against public enterprise even if it meantime looks more like an obstacle to any fresh civ terprise, whether public or private, that might enter the field and in that degree divide the monopoly. It is certainly claimed that the monopoly is the maximum of efficiency, and that competition against it by the AngloN.Z. company means a move towards a totalitarian State. Not a word is said in this particular instance of the virtues of that competition which is vaunted as the ideal alternative to public enterprise in nearly every other direction. Why should not competition where there is an oil monopoly be as good as ’comneti tion where there is no monopoly at all? The answer is simpl.y tha± our capitalists are bittern with the same bug as those everywhere else, and are as tolerant of monopoly as they arc. in principle oblivious of the essential lack of distributive justice in the whole scheme of industrial capitalism. It is suggested that, the new concern, by its competition, might eliminate the existing ones, and, in so doing sell cheaply, so as to lose money. As a matter of obvious fact, the Government has not for a women l hinted at anything of the kind. It has simply indicated that the Bureau of Industry may extend to the new competitor exactly similar facilities as those already enjoyed by the existing suppliers It is the completeness of their monopoly of distributive facilities which obliged the Government to legislate for alternative facilities Moreover, if present public utilities stand to benefit, the now do parture will assist the public generally. It finally is said that the oil companies need to bosh own how there might be greater efficiency. That appears pro cisely to be what they stand to be shown by the prospective competition.